Engaging Parents in Schools and Building Parent-School ...engagement in Australian schools. To...

35
Engaging Parents in Schools and Building Parent-School Partnerships: The Role of School and Parent Organisation Leadership Jenny Povey 1 Alice Campbell 1 Linda-Dianne Willis 2 Michele Haynes 1 Mark Western 1 Sarah Bennett 1 Emma Antrobus 1 Charley Pedde 1 1 Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland 2 School of Education, The University of Queensland No. 2016-07 April 2016

Transcript of Engaging Parents in Schools and Building Parent-School ...engagement in Australian schools. To...

  • Engaging Parents in Schools and Building Parent-School Partnerships: The Role of School and Parent Organisation Leadership

    Jenny Povey 1 Alice Campbell 1 Linda-Dianne Willis 2 Michele Haynes 1 Mark Western 1 Sarah Bennett 1 Emma Antrobus 1 Charley Pedde 1

    1 Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland 2 School of Education, The University of Queensland

    No. 2016-07

    April 2016

  • NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

    In an increasingly globalised and technological world, job market success in developed countries such

    as Australia depends on the attainment of post-secondary qualifications. However, young Australians

    do not all have an equal opportunity to attain this necessary level of education. As it currently stands,

    approximately two-and-a-half years of schooling separates the achievement scores of students in the

    highest and lowest socioeconomic quartiles, and student achievement differs significantly according to

    location (e.g. rural or metropolitan) and cultural background. All Australian governments have

    recognised the need to increase quality and equity in Australian schooling and one of the key ways in

    which they are currently seeking to achieve this is through improving parent-school partnerships and

    parent engagement in child learning.

    The critical importance of engaging parents in their child’s learning and building parent-school

    partnerships has been established in the international literature but research in the Australian context

    is limited. It is well documented that disadvantaged parents, which in Australia would include

    Indigenous parents and those from lower socio-economic statuses, tend to have lower levels of

    engagement in their child’s school and learning, and face additional barriers to engagement when

    compared to more advantaged parents. Our results are consistent with these previous findings.

    Although Principals from disadvantaged schools were just as likely as those from more advantaged

    schools to report using a range of engagement strategies, they were significantly less likely to find

    many methods effective in involving parents in their school. Furthermore, a less positive culture of

    parent volunteerism was reported by P&C Presidents from disadvantaged schools. This suggests that

    those schools in which the children stand to gain the most from increasing levels of parent

    engagement, are the same schools finding their efforts to engage parents the least effective. These

    findings highlight the need to identify what does work in disadvantaged schools and to ensure that

    interventions are tailored to the specific needs of these schools, as applying uniform strategies across

    all schools may only compound the advantage of those already doing well.

    Principals in this study emphasised different barriers to parent involvement according to the school’s

    level of advantage. Time-pressure factors such as work and family responsibilities were more likely to

    be identified in more advantaged schools, whereas parent factors such as a lack of interest and a lack

    of confidence, along with transportations problems, were more likely to be identified in disadvantaged

    schools. This information can be used to guide the future development of interventions.

  • (ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course)

    Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland (administration node)

    UQ Long Pocket Precinct, Indooroopilly, Qld 4068, Telephone: +61 7 334 67477

    Email: [email protected], Web: www.lifecoursecentre.org.au

    ABOUT THE AUTHORS

    Jenny Povey is a Research Fellow in Social Methods at the Institute for Social Science Research at The University of Queensland and a

    Life Course Centre Fellow. Jenny’s expertise is in survey development, evaluative research, social science survey data collection,

    quantitative and qualitative research methods, statistical analysis of complex data. Jenny’s research interests include

    intergenerational transfer of education aspirations and attitudes, parent and families engagement practices in student learning,

    culture-fair assessment, well-being, social disadvantage, and evidence based policy. Email: [email protected].

    Alice Campbell is a research assistant at the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland. Alice’s background

    is in psychology, with a particular focus on social and developmental psychology. Alice’s research interests include child development,

    self-concept, self-efficacy and perceived control over one’s life, caregiving and other prosocial behaviours and social, economic and

    educational inequalities. Email: [email protected].

    Linda Willis’s career as an educator spans over three decades. Since 2008, Linda has been a unit coordinator, lecturer and tutor across

    several Queensland universities, teaching courses in Curriculum Studies including English and Literacy, Social Education (Civics and

    Citizenship, History, Geography), Science, Mathematics and Numeracy, and Technology. She presently coordinates The University of

    Queensland's Master of Teaching (Primary) Program. Linda is particularly interested in ways to cultivate and sustain productive

    educational relationships such as among parents, schools, communities and universities. Email: [email protected]

    Michele Haynes is the Deputy Director Research of the Institute for Social Science Research at The University of Queensland. Michele

    is also the chairman of the social statistics Section of the Statistical Society of Australia. Her research interest focusses on the

    development of methodology for the analysis of longitudinal and multilevel social data. Michele has recent publications in statistics,

    sociology and health journals. Email: [email protected].

    Mark Western is the Director of the Institute for Social Science Research at The University of Queensland, a Fellow of the Academy of

    Social Science in Australia, and a sociologist. Mark is currently involved in a number of projects including studies of social, economic

    and educational inequality, research into social networks, and developments in survey research methods. His empirical research

    primarily relies on analyses of Australian and International cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys, but he is increasingly also working

    with aggregate and administrative data. Mark is the Program leader for Program1: Disadvantage Systems and leads the Life Course

    Centre Project on Social and Economic Mobility. Email: [email protected].

    Sarah Bennett is an experimental criminologist with experience in running multi-site randomized controlled trials with police in

    Australia and UK. Sarah’s research interests include legitimacy and policing, restorative justice, pathways to preventing offending and

    the impact of crime on victims. Sarah is a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology (AEC) and recipient of the distinguished

    AEC Young Scholar Award and Nigel Walker Prize (Cambridge University). Email: [email protected].

    Emma Antrobus is a Research Fellow within the ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course in the School

    of Social Science. Emma has a background in social psychology and has interests in the legitimacy of social agencies, crime

    prevention, and child protection. Her recent research focuses on randomized controlled trials examining the impact of police

    behaviour and legitimacy, and interventions for young people at risk. Email: [email protected].

    Charley Pedde is a graduate student at the University of Rostock. She completed her Bachelor’s degree in educational science at the

    University of Regensburg. Within her current study, she completed an internship with the University of Queensland, followed by a

    position as a research assistant at ISSR. Charley worked on a project that focused on aspects of parent engagement in the context of

    learning. She is currently working on her Master thesis, examining parent engagement in schools using PISA data. Email:

    [email protected].

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Funding for this research came from a University of Queensland Collaboration and Industry Engagement

    Fund (CEIF) Research Grant. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Children

    and Families over the Life Course (project number CE140100027). We would like to acknowledge P&Cs Qld and the Department of

    Education and Training for supporting the project and Queensland State School Principals and P&C Presidents for their participation.

    DISCLAIMER: The content of this Working Paper does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Life Course Centre. Responsibility for any

    information and views expressed in this Working Paper lies entirely with the author(s).

    mailto:[email protected]://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

  • Abstract

    A growing body of research suggests that a positive school climate and Principal leadership

    are pivotal to building parent-school partnerships and supporting parent engagement in child

    learning more generally. To begin investigating these factors, surveys were distributed to

    Principals and Presidents of parent organisations in 1,233 Queensland State (i.e. government

    or public) Schools. Results indicated that although overall Principals have very positive

    attitudes towards parent engagement, they differ somewhat in whether or not they expect

    parent engagement in areas such as school governance and mandatory requirements. The most

    commonly perceived barriers and effective engagement strategies were identified, and

    differed significantly across schools according to the school’s location and level of

    disadvantage. The implications for future research and interventions are discussed.

    Keywords: parent engagement; parent involvement; school leadership; school climate; parent

    organisations; disadvantaged schools

  • 1

    1 Introduction

    Education is critical in today’s society, with many of the conventional paths to success and

    financial stability dependent upon a certain level of educational attainment. Strong and

    consistent evidence shows that poor educational outcomes in children are associated with a

    range of antisocial behaviours including substance abuse, delinquent activity, long term

    offending behaviour, social exclusion and isolation, teenage pregnancy, unemployment and

    future dependency on social services (Henry & Huizinga, 2007a, 2007b; Stranger, 2002). In an

    increasingly globalised and technological world, job market success in developed countries

    such as Australia depends on the attainment of post-secondary qualifications (Ministerial

    Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008).

    Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory Education Ministers have declared that

    improving the educational outcomes of young Australians is central to the future well-being

    and prosperity of Australia, and to ensuring that all young Australians have an equal

    opportunity to live productive and fulfilling lives (MCEETYA, 2008).

    The quality of educational outcomes of Australian children has been a matter of some concern

    for recent Australian governments, educational researchers and the general public (Department

    of Education and Training [Australian Government], 2015a; Thomson, 2013; Wilson, Dalton,

    & Baumann, 2015). Australian students have performed below the average on a number of

    recent international achievement measures (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2012), and their

    results in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme

    for International Student Assessment (PISA) have shown a steady decline since the tests were

    first implemented in 2000 (Thomson, 2013). Of further concern, approximately two-and-a-half

    years of schooling separates the achievement scores of students in the highest and lowest

    socioeconomic quartiles, and student achievement differs significantly according to location

    (e.g. rural or metropolitan) and cultural background (Thomson, 2013). All Australian

    governments have recognised the need to increase quality and equity in Australian schooling

    (Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2013), and one of the key ways in which they

    are seeking to achieve this is through improving parent-school partnerships and parent

    engagement in child learning (Department of Education and Training [Australian

    Government], 2015b; MCEETYA, 2008).

    The critical importance of engaging parents in their child’s learning and building parent-school

    partnerships has been established in the international literature but research in the Australian

  • 2

    context is limited. The research presented here is part of a larger project focused on increasing

    levels of parent engagement and improving parent-school partnerships. Before this lofty goal

    can be realised, the current study provides the necessary foundation by investigating aspects of

    school climate, Principal leadership and the role of parent organisations as they relate to parent

    engagement in Australian schools. To contextualise the research, the following section

    provides a review of the literature on parent engagement in child learning, parent-school

    partnerships, school climate, Principal leadership and parent organisations.

    2 Literature review

    2.1 Parent engagement in child learning

    Parent engagement is broadly defined as the behaviours, values, attitudes and activities of

    parents that promote their child’s academic development, ability to learn and educational

    outcomes (Department of Education and Training [Australian Government], 2015c). More

    specifically, improved learning outcomes have been found when parents engage with their

    child’s learning at home by reading and playing mathematics games together, communicating

    high educational expectations, and talking with their child about their school activities and

    interests (Castro et al., 2015; Fox & Olsen, 2014; Harris & Goodall, 2007; Perkins & Knight,

    2014; Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, & Lloyd, 2013). Such forms of parent engagement have

    also been shown to benefit children’s social and emotional development (Chazan-Cohen et al.,

    2009; Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004; Mistry, Benner, Biesanz, & Clark, 2010;

    Powell, Son, File, & San Juan, 2010), and improve student attendance and school retention

    (McNeal, 2001). This vast body of literature clearly demonstrates the many benefits that arise

    when parents engage with their child’s learning at home. Yet another important aspect of

    parents’ engagement with their child’s learning is involvement and collaboration with their

    child’s school.

    2.2 Parent-school partnerships

    It has been widely argued that optimal child learning outcomes occur when the key educators

    in a child’s life, that is parents and schools, form respectful and collaborative partnerships with

    one another and work towards common goals (Emerson, Fear, Fox, & Sanders, 2012; Epstein,

    2011; Fox & Olsen, 2014; Goodall & Montgomery, 2014). For example, Goodall and

    Montgomery’s (2014) model of parent engagement conceptualises agency for child learning as

    belonging to parents, supported by schools. Emerson et al. (2012) state that parent involvement

  • 3

    within schools can act as a precursor to effective practices at home. There is also evidence to

    suggest that parents are more likely to be engaged in their child’s learning at home when

    schools have high expectations for them to do so and provide commensurate practical support

    (Dauber & Epstein, 1989; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Parental Engagement Project Taskforce,

    2011; Toldson & Lemmons, 2013; Whitaker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2013). Schools may be well-

    placed to help build the capacity of parents by training them in aspects of the curriculum

    (Emerson et al., 2012, Fox & Olsen, 2014; Parental Engagement Project Taskforce, 2011). For

    example, Senechal and Young (2008) found that training parents to tutor their child in specific

    literacy skills significantly benefited the child’s reading ability. Schools can also promote the

    benefits of parent engagement and facilitate the mutual sharing of information about the child’s

    wellbeing and progress (Emerson et al., 2012; Fox & Olsen, 2014; Parental Engagement

    Project Taskforce, 2011).

    Although previous reviews of the relevant research concluded that the direct relationship

    between parent involvement in schools (e.g. in the forms of volunteering and attending social

    events) and children’s learning outcomes is small (Jeynes, 2005; Van Voorhis et al., 2013),

    such involvement can help parents to build supportive social networks, develop positive

    relationships with school staff, and understand school norms (Fox & Olsen, 2014). This may

    be particularly important for parents from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are at greater risk

    of experiencing barriers to both forming partnerships with schools and engaging in their child’s

    learning more generally (Fox & Olsen, 2014; Kim, 2009; Turney & Kao, 2009).

    Levels of parent involvement in schools have been shown to decrease markedly as children

    enter adolescence and transition to secondary school (Epstein, 1990; Wang and Sheikh-Khalil,

    2014; Zill & Nord, 1994). It has been proposed that more appropriate forms of parent

    engagement at this stage of a child’s life involve scaffolding a child’s decision-making and

    future planning capabilities and socialising them around the goals and benefits of education: a

    type of engagement referred to as academic socialisation (Hill & Tyson, 2009). Certainly, Hill

    and Tyson’s (2009) meta-analysis found that academic socialisation has a stronger relationship

    with adolescents’ academic achievement than parent involvement in schools. However, parent

    involvement in forms such as volunteering and attending school events was still found to have

    a moderate, positive association with adolescent learning outcomes. Wang and Sheikh-Khalil

    (2014) found that parents’ school involvement had a significant, indirect association with

    adolescents’ academic and mental health outcomes, mediated by the child’s emotional

    engagement with their schooling (i.e. how much they enjoy and value their schooling).

  • 4

    Therefore, supporting parents’ continued involvement in their child’s school as they transition

    from primary to secondary schooling is likely to benefit child learning outcomes.

    Given the crucial role that schools can play in supporting parents’ engagement with their

    child’s learning and the mutual benefits that flow from parent-school partnerships, it is essential

    to identify which aspects of a school may enable such successful collaboration. A review of

    the current literature suggests that school climate and leadership may play key roles.

    2.3 School climate

    A growing body of research suggests that for schools to successfully form partnerships with

    parents, a positive school climate is required (Gavidia-Payne, Denny, Davis, Francis, &

    Jackson, 2015; Goldkind & Farmer, 2013; Kaplan Toren & Seginer, 2015; Wallace 2013;

    Whitaker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2013). School climate is defined as the subjective experience

    of the quality and character of school life, as reflected in the norms, goals, values, relationships,

    organizational structure and methods of teaching and learning within the school (National

    School Climate Council, 2007). Certain aspects of school climate appear to be particularly

    important for building parent-school partnerships and engaging parents in their child’s

    learning. For example, levels of parent engagement appear to be higher when teachers: have a

    positive relationship with the child, care about the child’s academic development, and are

    perceived by parents as approachable and communicating frequently (Eccles & Harold, 1996;

    Gavidia-Payne et al., 2015; Hayes, 2011; Kaplan Toren & Seginer, 2015; Watkins, 1997).

    Furthermore, higher levels of parent engagement have been associated with an overall school

    climate perceived by parents as safe, trustworthy, respectful, friendly, inclusive and

    collaborative (Day, 2013; Goldkind & Farmer, 2013; Griffith, 1998; Whitaker & Hoover-

    Dempsey, 2013). Conversely, disengaged parents have cited a negative school climate as a

    barrier to their becoming more involved with the school and engaged in their child’s learning

    (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Day, 2013; Hanafin & Lynch, 2002).

    A school’s climate is created partly through relationships and interactions among all members

    of a school community (National School Climate Council, 2016), including students, teachers,

    parents and guidance officers. However, those in leadership positions within the school, most

    notably the school Principal and President of the school’s parent organisation, may be

    particularly influential in shaping the school’s climate when it comes to parent engagement.

  • 5

    2.4 Principal leadership

    School Principals appear to play a central role in shaping school climate and facilitating parent

    engagement in child learning through their leadership style, communication, attitudes and

    expectations (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Drysdale, Goode, & Gurr, 2009; Giles, 2006; Gordon

    & Louis, 2009; Mleczko & Kington, 2013). When it comes to identifying the precise

    mechanisms through which this occurs however, the current literature is far from conclusive.

    In one study, parents reported their perception that the Principal had a direct influence on school

    climate through their own personal vision that then filtered down to other staff in a top-down

    manner (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014). Mleckzo and Kington (2013) similarly argue that levels of

    parent involvement in schools increase when Principals actively embed a whole school vision

    that values the role of parents in their child’s learning. These researchers further argue that

    Principals who distribute school leadership among parents and teachers will be more successful

    in accomplishing this goal.

    In Mleckzo and Kington’s (2013) investigation of two United Kingdom schools—each with

    relatively high proportions of disadvantaged students and learning outcomes above those of

    comparable schools—the successful Principals used two-way communication and incorporated

    the ideas of parents and staff to involve and help them feel included. Another way that

    Principals influence the school climate, as it relates to parent engagement, is through

    facilitating or restricting parents’ access to teachers (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Mleczko &

    Kington, 2013). It is also possible that Principals who value parent engagement may be more

    likely to provide training opportnities for teaching staff to build their skills in working with

    parents—something that 82% of Australian teachers identified as their greatest professional

    development need (Doecke et al., 2008). Clearly there is still much to be learned about how

    Principals foster parent-school partnerships, and what makes some Principals more successful

    at this than others. Another potentially influential yet under-researched figure in the school,

    someone who is in a position to form collaborative partnerships with both parents and

    Principals, is the President of the school’s parent organisation.

    2.5 The role of parent organisations

    Internationally, parent organisations provide a well-recognised and structured way for parents

    to engage with their child’s school (Pakseresht & Ahari, 2014), and involvement in parent

    organisations has been used as a proxy measure of parent engagement in some studies (Garcia,

    2004; Hill & Taylor, 2004). Parent organisations create potential channels for Principals and

  • 6

    teachers to consult with the parents and community about school matters (Ekundayo & Alonge,

    2012; Gianzero, 1999; I-wah, 1997; Khong & Ng, 2005; Ozmen & Canpolat, 2010; Shakur,

    2012). They can have an important influence on the school climate and the extent to which all

    parents feel comfortable at the school (Gianzero, 1999), although in some instances they can

    foster division and exclusivity (Cheung, Lam, & Ngai, 2008). Most international research

    investigating parent attitudes towards parent organisations has found that parents rate the

    organisations positively (I-wah, 1997; Pakseresht & Ahari, 2014; Payne, Hinds, & Gay, 1986).

    Research in the Australian context has been sparse, and focused mainly on documenting the

    role of parent organisations using qualitative methods (e.g. Gow, 2008). Gow’s (2008) analysis

    of parent organisations from 1921 to 1991 in the Riverina area, New South Wales, showed that

    they made a vital contribution to schools by establishing firm links with the community. These

    links then allowed the community to support the schools and vice-versa. Hence, it is likely that

    parent organisations play a central role in building parent-school partnerships in some schools,

    however, further research is needed to establish the conditions under which this takes place.

    In Queensland, parent organisations in State Schools are called Parents and Citizens (P&C)

    Associations. They are established under the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld).

    P&C Associations are represented by the overarching peak body P&Cs Qld, whose aims and

    objectives include promoting closer cooperation between principals, teachers, students and

    parents and involvement in all areas of education affecting the parent, school and community

    (P&Cs Qld, 2016). Membership of P&C Associations is open to interested persons over the

    age of 18, including parents of current students, members of the community (citizens), students

    over the age of 18 and staff members of the school (Kelso, 2013). The executive of a P&C

    Association is comprised of the President (hereafter referred to as the P&C President), Vice-

    President, Secretary and Treasurer. The P&C President’s role includes providing leadership,

    fostering good communication between the Association, school and community, and

    encouraging participation (Kelso, 2013).

    The aim of the research presented here was to gather baseline school level data, in the

    Australian context, on the leadership role school Principals and Parent Organisation play in

    shaping school climate and facilitating parent engagement in child learning. This research will

    add to the existing body of literature by: exploring in greater depth than previously seen, the

    role and perspectives of the President of the school parent organisation with regards to parent

    engagement; adding to a growing body of knowledge about the role of school Principals and

  • 7

    school climate; and identifying how the uptake of engagement strategies differs across

    Australian schools according to location, type and level of advantage. The findings from this

    research will provide a solid foundation for the future development and implementation of

    interventions in schools aimed at increasing levels of parent engagement and improving parent-

    school partnerships.

    3 Method

    The data used for this paper were obtained from the Parent Engagement in Schools (PES)

    project, which collected data from State Schools in Queensland, Australia. The State of

    Queensland has a population of approximately 4.8 million people (Australian Bureau of

    Statistics, 2015), making it the third most populous of Australia’s six States and two Territories.

    Demographically, the Queensland population is broadly representative of the other Australian

    states (Queensland Government, 2012). It is also representative educationally based on the

    latest nation-wide assessment of Australian students on literacy and numeracy achievement

    such that the average performance of Queensland students did not differ significantly from the

    national mean (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015).

    3.1 Participants

    The sampling frame used for this study was all 1,233 State schools in Queensland in 20141. A

    total of 729 Queensland State Schools participated in the study (457 Principals and 492 P&C

    Presidents). Of these, completed surveys were received from 618 schools (385 from Principals

    and 402 from P&C Presidents). Data were collected from both the Principal and P&C President

    for 169 schools. The sample of 618 schools comprised 427 primary schools, 26 special schools,

    122 secondary schools and 43 combined (primary/secondary) schools. Schools varied in their

    location, with 67 situated in a remote zone, 212 in a rural zone, 59 in a provincial city zone and

    280 in a metropolitan zone. The schools also varied in their Index of Community Socio-

    Educational Advantage (ICSEA) score. School ICSEA values are a composite of student socio-

    educational status (parent occupation and education), school remoteness, and percentage of

    Indigenous students and those from a Language Background Other than English (LBOTE)

    (Barnes, 2010). A total of 55 schools had an ICSEA value more than one standard deviation

    below the national median (

  • 8

    deviation below the national median (900-999) and 222 schools had an ICSEA value at or

    above the national median (1,000+).

    Descriptive analyses, including chi-square goodness of fit tests and one sample t-tests, were

    conducted to compare the characteristics of participating schools (e.g. those with completed

    surveys by Principals and/or P&C Presidents) with the overall population of Queensland State

    Schools (Table 1). As Table 1 shows, participating Principals were associated with schools that

    were broadly representative of all Queensland State Schools with regards to location, ICSEA

    score, school size, and proportion of Indigenous and LBOTE students. However, Principals

    from secondary schools were over-represented in the sample and those from Primary schools

    under-represented. Participating P&C Presidents were disproportionately from secondary

    schools, schools with a high ICSEA value, and those located in a metropolitan zone. Their

    schools had significantly higher enrolments than the Queensland State School mean, and

    significantly lower proportions of Indigenous students.

  • 9

    Table 1. Characteristics of participating schools compared to the population of Queensland State Schools

    Variable

    Population:

    All Queensland State

    schools

    (N=1,233)

    Sample:

    Schools with complete

    Principal data

    (N=385)

    Sample:

    Schools with complete

    P&C President data

    (N=402)

    Sample:

    Schools with complete

    Principal or P&C President or

    both

    (N=618)

    ICSEA category

  • 10

    3.2 Instrumentation

    The separate Principal and P&C President surveys were designed by the Parent Engagement in

    Schools (PES) project team at The University of Queensland, with measures created following

    an extensive literature review and refined by input from an expert panel (including

    representatives from the Queensland Department of Education and Training and the peak

    parent organisation body, P&Cs Queensland). Some of the survey items were inspired and

    adapted from the Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB) Survey 2007-2008 and OECD

    Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Principal Questionnaire. A Principal

    parent engagement leadership scale was developed for the purpose of this study, and future

    publications will validate this measure.

    Principals and P&C Presidents were asked about their perceptions of the benefits and barriers

    to parent engagement in the life of the school, the Principal’s leadership style and the

    Principal’s relationship with parents, frequency and methods of communication with parents,

    and the use and effectiveness of different methods to engage parents in their school.

    Additionally, Principals were asked about their expectations surrounding parent involvement

    in school life and student learning, and P&C Presidents were asked about parent volunteering

    in the school. Table 2 shows the final composition of the Principal and P&C President Survey

    questionnaires. The final versions of the survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete

    and were offered in an online mode or, where requested, hard copy. Each survey included a

    unique code, which enabled the administrative school data provided by the Queensland

    Department of Education and Training to be linked to the survey data.

    3.3 Procedure

    The PES team sent personal invitations in August 2014 to every State School Principal and

    P&C President in Queensland whose contact details were available via the relevant supervising

    body. For the remainder of the schools, a generic administrative email address was used.

    Twenty school Principals and three P&C Presidents refused to take part in the study. Only one

    school indicated that they did not have a P&C Association.

    P&Cs Qld advertised the survey in their newsletter and via twitter. Principal Associations were

    contacted and informed of the survey. Principals were asked to check that the P&C President

    received the invitation to participate and vice versa. Participation in the survey was voluntary.

    Six reminder emails were sent between August 2014 and November 2014 when data collection

    closed. Four weeks into the data collection, preliminary results from the study were presented

    at a P&C annual State conference and schools that had not yet participated and were present at

    the conference, were provided the opportunity to collect a hardcopy survey.

  • 11

    Table 2. Composition of Principal and P&C President Survey questionnaires

    Constructs Number of items Example items Response Scale Survey

    Principal Leadership Style 10 I play an integral role in promoting parental engagement in

    our school

    I think that parental engagement is an unnecessary

    interference in school affairs

    1 (Strongly Disagree) –

    5 (Strongly Agree)

    Principal and

    P&C President

    Principal’s Relationship with Parents 9 I treat parents in the school with respect

    Parents in the school don’t trust me

    1 (Strongly Disagree) –

    5 (Strongly Agree)

    Principal and

    P&C President

    Principal’s Attitude Towards P&C

    6 The current P&C is ineffective

    The P&C takes up too much of my time

    1 (Strongly Disagree) –

    5 (Strongly Agree)

    Principal only

    Benefits of Parent Engagement 7 Student learning outcomes

    Social capital in the school community

    1 (Strongly Disagree) –

    5 (Strongly Agree)

    Principal and

    P&C President

    Barriers to Parent Engagement 17 Work commitments

    Parents lack confidence

    1(Not at all) –

    5(To a great extent)

    or “N/A’

    Principal and

    P&C President

    Effective Methods for Engaging Parents 25 Communicating using a variety of methods

    Making yourself available and visible

    1(Ineffective) –

    5(Very Effective)

    or “Not Used”

    Principal and

    P&C President

    Expectations for Parent Involvement 26 Supporting their child’s learning at home

    Attending parent information evenings

    1(Not at all) –

    5(To a Great Extent)

    or “N/A’

    Principal only

    Communication 11 How often does your school use the following means of

    communication to share student related information with

    individual parents – phone calls

    Daily/Weekly/Fortnightly/

    Monthly/A few times a year/

    Never

    Principal only

    Parent Volunteering 8 We have lists of parents who are always willing to help

    We have had to cancel events due to a lack of volunteers

    Tick all that apply P&C President only

  • 12

    3.4 Data analysis

    Data from the surveys were analysed using Stata Statistical Software: Release 14 (StataCorp,

    2015). Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses included frequencies, cross-tabulations

    and chi-square tests of significance. Due to very small cell sizes in some response categories,

    items assessing perceived benefits and barriers, Principal’s relationship with parents,

    Principal’s attitudes towards the P&C and effective engagement methods were converted into

    binary variables, such that values of four and five were collapsed into one category

    (conceptualised as representing agree/to a great extent/effective) and the values one, two, and

    three were collapsed into another category (conceptualised as representing do not agree/not a

    great extent/not effective).

    4 Results

    The results of the Principal and P&C President surveys are presented together in the

    following order: perceived benefits of parent engagement, perceived barriers to parent

    engagement, effective engagement methods, parent volunteerism, Principal’s expectations,

    Principal leadership, parent-school relationships and communication. Within each of these

    eight categories, frequencies are presented and the least and/or most common responses

    identified. Any significant differences according to school ICSEA, type and location are also

    described.

    4.1 Benefits of parent engagement

    Principals and P&C Presidents held positive attitudes towards parent engagement overall, with

    the vast majority endorsing all of the proposed benefits of parent engagement, including:

    enhanced student learning outcomes (97% Principals; 93% P&C Presidents), student

    attendance (99%; 93%), positive student behaviour (99%; 95%), school retention of students

    (96%; 89%), school culture (94%; 96%), self-development among parents (85%; 84%), and

    social capital (93%; 90%). Principals from secondary schools were significantly less likely to

    endorse ‘personal development of parents’ as a benefit of parent engagement compared with

    their primary school counterparts (χ² (1, N = 385) = 8.147, p

  • 13

    4.2 Barriers to parent engagement

    Time pressures appear to be a significant factor inhibiting parent involvement in schools, with

    the barriers most frequently identified by Principals and P&C Presidents including: work

    commitments (89% of Principals; 85% of P&C Presidents), family commitments (75%; 59%),

    caring responsibilities (57%; 47%) and timing of events (57%; 36%). A lack of parent interest

    was also identified as a barrier by 56% of Principals and 63% of P&C Presidents.

    Parents in disadvantaged schools appeared to experience different barriers to becoming

    involved compared with parents in more advantaged schools. As shown in table 3, Principals

    from lower ICSEA schools were significantly more likely to identify a number of barriers as

    reducing parent involvement, including transportation problems, a lack of parent interest, lack

    of trust in the responsiveness of the school to parent concerns, the parents not feeling capable,

    and the parents lacking confidence. Time pressures appear to be less of a barrier in these

    schools, with P&C Presidents from lower ICSEA schools being less likely to identify work

    commitments, family commitments and caring responsibilities as barriers. This is important

    information that may help guide future interventions aimed at increasing levels of engagement

    in disadvantaged schools.

    Secondary school P&C Presidents were significantly more likely than their primary

    counterparts to identify a lack of parent confidence and an unwelcoming school environment

    as barriers to parents becoming involved, information that again may be useful for guiding

    interventions in these schools.

    4.3 Effective methods for engaging parents

    There was general agreement between Principals and P&C Presidents surrounding the most

    effective ways to engage parents in their school, with both groups most likely to nominate the

    following methods as effective: creating a respectful and welcoming environment (93% of

    Principals; 67% of P&C Presidents), being flexible in accommodating the needs of parents and

    families (88%; 61%), and recognising volunteers (88%; 62%).

    As Table 4 shows, a number of methods were less likely to be rated by Principals as effective

    as the ICSEA value of the school decreased. This included, but was not limited to: offering

    workshops/programs to support parent learning, supporting parents to help their children’s’

    learning at home, providing a variety of volunteer opportunities, communicating high

    expectations about school involvement, and encouraging parents to be part of decision making.

  • 14

    Similarly, P&C Presidents were less likely to rate the following methods as effective as the

    ICSEA value of the school decreased: creating a respectful and welcoming environment (χ² (2,

    N = 398) = 15.80, p

  • 15

    Table 3. Percentage of Principals and P&C Presidents identifying barriers to parent engagement by ICSEA, school type and zone

    *p

  • 16

    Table 4. Percentage of Principals rating methods of engagement as effective by school type and ICSEA

    School Type School ICSEA

    Primary

    School

    Secondary

    School

  • 17

    4.4 Parent volunteerism

    Almost half (48%) of P&C Presidents indicated that they have a list of parents always willing

    to help, and 35% indicated that they use small groups that network with parents and obtain help

    that way. However, 49% of P&C Presidents endorsed the statement that, although they have

    lists and use networks, they still struggle to get enough volunteers. Just over 10% of P&C

    Presidents indicated that they had cancelled events due to a lack of volunteers.

    Volunteer recruitment and uptake differed across school type and ICSEA, with disadvantaged

    schools and secondary schools reporting a less positive culture of parent volunteerism. This is

    unsurprising given that a number of engagement strategies, as noted earlier, were less likely to

    be perceived as effective in these schools. P&C Presidents from schools with an ICSEA below

    900 were significantly more likely than P&C Presidents from schools with an ICSEA of 1,000

    or more to report struggling to enlist volunteers and having to ‘beg and plead’ (52% versus

    28%, χ² (2, N = 402) = 6.31, p

  • 18

    (33%), school building maintenance (29%), business operations (14%), and curriculum design

    (9%). Principals’ expectations did not differ significantly across school ICSEA or location;

    however, they did differ between primary and secondary schools. Table 5 below shows the

    areas of school life that Principals from secondary schools are significantly less likely to expect

    parents to be involved in compared with their primary counterparts.

    Table 5. Principals’ expectations for parent involvement by school type

    Primary

    %

    Secondary

    %

    χ²

    Helping in the classroom 83% 27% 88.55***

    Grant writing 62% 36% 16.26***

    Fundraising 94% 66% 40.19***

    Volunteering (e.g. school fetes) 94% 83% 7.97**

    Running the uniform, book, and stationary

    shops

    90% 70% 17.00***

    School socials 86% 40% 55.72***

    School events (e.g. concerts, sports days) 95% 58% 68.94***

    Parents and children together activities 95% 57% 63.02***

    Assemblies 74% 26% 58.74***

    Excursions 60% 14% 48.76***

    **p

  • 19

    considered that parents were not well-equipped to be active participants in school governance

    and Principals were no more or less likely to think this in disadvantaged schools. This

    suggests that negative views about parental involvement in school governance are entrenched

    in a sizeable minority of Principals irrespective of school context. In fact, responses did not

    differ systematically on any of the leadership items according to school ICSEA, location or

    type, suggesting that these factors do not determine a Principal’s leadership style as it relates

    to parent engagement.

    4.7 Relationships between parents and the school

    Almost all Principals agreed they had strong relationships with parents—a sentiment echoed

    by approximately 75% of P&C Presidents. For both groups, the vast majority agreed that

    parents were given opportunities to voice issues and concerns. While 100% of Principals stated

    that they treat parents with respect, only 88% of P&C Presidents indicated that their school’s

    Principal treat parents with respect. Similarly, while 97% of Principals agreed that parents in

    their school trust them, only 89% of P&C Presidents agreed with this statement concerning

    their school’s Principal. Furthermore, Principals and P&C Presidents differed in their

    agreement that parents should obey school rules even when it goes against what they think is

    right (69% of P&C Presidents versus 85% of Principals) and agreement that parents should

    accept decisions made by the school even if they disagree (43% of P&C Presidents versus 62%

    of Principals). Responses to these items did not differ significantly according to school type,

    zone or ICSEA.

    The vast majority of Principals reported positive attitudes towards the school P&C Association.

    Only 8% of Principals agreed that the P&C took up too much of their time, 9% felt that the

    P&C was ineffective, and 4% felt that the school would be better off without a P&C. Responses

    to these items did not differ across school zone, type or ICSEA. This is consistent with the

    Principal leadership findings reported above. While a sizeable minority of Principals did not

    support parent involvement in school governance, a smaller minority did not appear to hold

    positive attitudes regarding parent involvement even in the form of the P&C Association. These

    views were held regardless of a school’s location or type. The consequences of Principals

    holding such views for a school’s climate and levels of parent engagement represent important

    areas for future research.

  • 20

    4.8 Communicating with parents

    Principals were asked how often certain means of communication were used to share school or

    student related information with parents. The daily communication about student related

    information occurred mostly via phone (64%) and email (32%). School related information

    was mostly shared with parents fortnightly via electronic (51%) and printed (48%) school

    newsletter. Assemblies were mostly used weekly (78%) and parent information meetings were

    used a few time s a year (74%) to share school related information with parents. Most of the

    schools combined the use of electronic and printed newsletter (69%); only 15% of schools

    exclusively used printed and only 15% exclusively used electronic school newsletters. In terms

    of school zone and means of communication, it appeared that schools in metropolitan areas

    were the most likely to use the electronic school newsletter exclusively (χ² (6, N = 382) = 38.78,

    p

  • 21

    5 Discussion

    5.1 Principal leadership

    Principal’s expectations and attitudes can have a significant impact on school climate, and the

    extent to which parents engage with their child’s school and participate in their broader

    academic development (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Mleczko & Kington, 2013). Based on their

    own self-reports, the Principals in this study appeared to have very positive attitudes towards

    parent engagement. They widely endorsed all of the proposed benefits of parent engagement

    in child learning, held high expectations for parent involvement in student learning, school

    events and fundraising, reported very positive relationships with the parents in their school and

    perceived their school’s P&C Association in a positive light. However, these reposnses are

    likely to be somewhat skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias (see Tourangeau,

    Rips, & Rasinski, 2000). Indeed, some discrepancies were found between how P&C Presidents

    perceived their Principal and how Principals perceived themselves, with around one-fifth of

    P&C Presidents reporting that their Principal did not collaborate and engage with the parents

    in their school. It is possible that these results reflect the fact that the samples of Principals and

    P&C Presidents did not completely overlap and as such represent somewhat different schools.

    Forthcoming manuscripts will explore contradictions between Principal and P&C President

    survey responses using the subsample of 169 schools from which both Principal and P&C

    President responses were received.

    While Principals’ attitudes towards parent engagement were found to be positive overall,

    around one-fifth of Principals did not support parent involvement in school governance, and a

    smaller minority held negative views about the school’s P&C Association. These attitudes

    appear to arise from within the Principals themselves, as their occurrence did not differ

    systematically according to contextual factors such as school location or disadvantage. The

    potential impacts of Principals holding such views is concerning. Principals who think this way

    are unlikely to support parent involvement in school governance or curriculum even when

    structures are present or available. This means that the cycle of traditional parent engagement

    in schools is continued and opportunities for increased engagement are missed. In this instance

    the outlook for parents in disadvantaged schools is the direst.

  • 22

    5.2 School climate

    The notion that school climate significantly impacts on levels of parent engagement (Hoover-

    Dempsey et al., 2005) is supported by the finding that the engagement strategy most likely to

    be rated as effective by both Principals and P&C Presidents was ‘creating a respectful and

    welcoming environment’. Aspects of school climate, such as a lack of communication between

    parents and teachers and a lack of trust in the responsiveness of the school to parent concerns,

    were identified as reducing parent involvement in approximately 25% of schools. Forthcoming

    work will focus on modelling relationships among Principal leadership styles, perceptions of

    school climate, parent involvement in the school and child learning outcomes.

    5.3 Disadvantaged schools

    It is well documented that disadvantaged parents, which in Australia would include Indigenous

    parents and those from lower socio-economic statuses, tend to have lower levels of engagement

    in their child’s school and learning, and face additional barriers to engagement when compared

    to more advantaged parents (Day, 2013; Hanafin & Lynch, 2002; Kim, 2009; Parental

    Engagement Project Taskforce, 2011). Hence, the results of this study are consistent with

    previous findings. Although Principals from lower ICSEA schools were just as likely as those

    from higher ICSEA schools to report using a range of engagement strategies, they were

    significantly less likely to find many methods effective in involving parents in their school.

    Furthermore, a less positive culture of parent volunteerism was reported by P&C Presidents

    from lower ICSEA schools. This suggests that those schools in which the children stand to gain

    the most from increasing levels of parent engagement, are the same schools finding their efforts

    to engage parents the least effective. It highlights the need to identify what does work in

    disadvantaged schools and to ensure that interventions are tailored to the specific needs of these

    schools, as applying uniform strategies across all schools may only compound the advantage

    of those already doing well.

    Principals in this study emphasised different barriers to parent involvement according to the

    school’s ICSEA value. In higher ICSEA schools, time-pressure factors such as work and family

    responsibilities were more likely to be identified, whereas in lower ICSEA schools parent

    factors such as a lack of interest and a lack of confidence were more likely to be identified,

    along with transportation problems. This information can be used to guide interventions in

    disadvantaged schools.

  • 23

    5.4 Secondary schools

    This study identified a range of differences between primary and secondary schools, which is

    unsurprising given that previous research has consistently demonstrated decreasing levels of

    parent involvement in schools as children enter adolescence. While it has been argued that this

    may be a developmentally appropriate phenomenon, parent involvement in schools has still

    been found to have positive, if indirect, associations with adolescent learning outcomes. It may

    therefore be of some concern that secondary principals have significantly lower expectations

    for parent involvement in many aspects of school life, communicate less frequently with the

    parent body, and are less likely to identify parent self-development as a benefit of parent

    engagement. A range of engagement strategies were significantly less likely to be effective in

    secondary schools, and it is possible that this may, in part, be reflective of declining parent

    confidence and the perception of a more unwelcoming school environment as children enter

    secondary school, as identified by P&C Presidents. These findings provide useful starting

    points for those secondary schools seeking to strengthen partnerships with parents.

    5.5 Limitations

    A limitation of this research is that it included only the perspectives of the school Principal and

    P&C President. Future analyses will address this by linking the PES survey data with data from

    Queensland Department of Education and Training School Opinion Surveys of parents,

    teachers and students.

    6 Conclusions

    This paper has outlined the methodology and described the baseline findings of the PES

    surveys, which are part of a larger project investigating how school climate, Principal

    leadership and parent organisations contribute to levels of parent engagement in Australian

    schools. This paper has described how Queensland State schools differ from one another on

    factors including Principal leadership, effective engagement strategies, barriers to engaging

    parents, and parent volunteerism. Future work will incorporate the perspectives of parents,

    teachers and students; profile schools according to Principal leadership style; and model

    relationships among Principal leadership, school climate, parent engagement and child learning

    outcomes. This will inform the development of interventions to increase levels of parent

    engagement in schools, with the ultimate aim of improving the learning outcomes of children

    not only in Australia but also overseas.

  • 24

    References

    Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Regional population growth, Australia, 2013-2014 (Report

    No. 3218.0). Retrieved from

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features30201

    3-14?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2013-14&num=&view=

    Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). National assessment program

    literacy and numeracy: National Report for 2015. Retrieved from

    http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_resources/2015_NAPLAN_national_report.pdf

    Barnes, G. (2010). Report on the generation of the 2010 Index of Community Socio-Educational

    Advantage (ICSEA). Retrieved from

    http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/ICSEA_Generation_Report.pdf

    Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). It all comes down to the leadership: The role of the school principal

    in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration &

    Leadership, 42(4), 491-505. doi: 10.1177/1741143213502189

    Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J.

    L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis.

    Educational Research Review, 14, 33-46. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002

    Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C., Pan, B.A., Kisker, E.,…Fuligni, S.A.

    (2009). Low-income children’s school readiness: Parent contributions over the first five

    years. Early Education and Devlopment, 20(6), 958-977. doi: 10.1080/10409280903362402

    Cheung, C., Lam, C., & Ngai, S. (2008). Help from the parent–teacher association to parenting

    efficacy: Beyond social status and informal social capital. Journal of Socio-economics, 37(3),

    1134-1152. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.068

    Council of Australian Governments. (2013). National Educaiton Reform Agreement. Retrieved from

    http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-

    agreement_201412.pdf

    Day, S. (2013). “Terms of engagement” not “hard to reach parents”. Educaitonal Psychology in

    Practice, 29(1), 36-53. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2012.748649

  • 25

    Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1989). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city

    elementary and middle schools (Report No. 33). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on

    Elementary and Middle Schools.

    Department of Education and Training, Australian Government. (2015a). Schooling. Retrieved from

    https://www.education.gov.au/schooling

    Department of Education and Training, Australian Government. (2015b). Students first. Retrieved

    from https://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/

    Department of Education and Training, Australian Government. (2015c). Making my school better.

    Retrieved from

    https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/makingmyschoolbetter.pdf

    Doecke, B., Parr, G., North, S., Gale, T., Long, M., Mitchell, J. et al. (2008). National mapping of

    teacher professional learning project: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education,

    Employment and Workplace Relations.

    Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2009). An Australian model of successful school leadership:

    Moving from success to sustainability. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 697-

    708. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910993087

    Eccles, J.S., & Harold, R.D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescent’s schooling. In

    A. Booth & F.J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes?

    (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld). Retrieved from

    https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/EducGenPrA06.pdf

    Ekundayo, H. T., & Alonge, H. O. (2012). Strengthening the Roles of Parent Teacher Association in

    Secondary Schools for Better Community Participation in Educational Development in

    Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 16. doi:

    10.5539/jedp.v2n2p16

    Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental engagement in learning and

    schooling: Lessons from research. Retrieved from http://www.aracy.org.au/publications-

    resources/command/download_file/id/7/filename/Parental_engagement_in_learning_and_sch

    ooling_Lessons_from_research_BUREAU_ARACY_August_2012.pdf

  • 26

    Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for

    integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage and Family Review, 15(1-2), 99-

    126.

    Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and

    improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M.A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family

    involvement and their relations to behavioural and learning competencies for urban, low-

    income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467-480. Retrieved from

    http://search.proquest.com/docview/219645403?accountid=14723

    Fox, S. & Olsen, A. (2014). Education capital: Our evidence base. Defining parental engagement.

    Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.

    Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and family

    involvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39(3),

    290-315. doi: 10.1177/0042085904263205

    Gavidia-Payne, S., Denny, B., Davis, K., Francis, A., & Jackson, M. (2014). Children’s self-concept:

    Parental school engagement and student-teacher relationships in rural and urban Australia.

    Social Psychology of Education, 18(1), 121-136. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9277-3

    Gianzero, G. (1999). Promoting parental involvement: Improving student outcomes. San Diego

    Dialogue. Retrieved from https://edadm821.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/parental-

    involvement-doc.pdf

    Giles, C. (2006). Transformational Leadership in Challenging Urban Elementary Schools: A Role for

    Parent Involvement? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 257-282. doi:

    10.1080/15700760600805865

    Goldkind, L., & Farmer, G. L. (2013). The Enduring Influence of School Size and School Climate on

    Parents’ Engagement in the School Community. School Community Journal, 23(1), 223-244.

    Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1406196554?accountid=14723

    Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: a continuum.

    Educational Review, 66(4), 399-410. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2013.781576

  • 27

    Gordon, M.F., & Louis, K.S. (2009). Linking Parent and Community Involvement with Student

    Achievement: Comparing Principal and Teacher Perceptions of Stakeholder Influence.

    American Journal of Education, 116(1), 1-31. doi: 10.1086/605098

    Gow, C. (2008). Parents and Citizen’s Associations in the Riverina 1921 - 1991: Their role and

    function in schools and communities. CSURA Research Scholarships. Charles Sturt

    University. Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au/research/archives/summer-scholarships

    Griffith, J. (1998). The Relation of School Structure and Social Environment to Parent Involvement

    in Elementary Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 53-80. doi: 10.1086/461916

    Hanafin, J., & Lynch, A. (2002). Peripheral voices: Parental involvement, social class, and

    educational disadvantage. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1), 35-49. doi:

    10.1080/01425690120102845

    Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they

    matter?(Report No. DCSF-RW004). Retrieved from

    http://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/3469/1/Engaging%20parents%20and%20raising%2

    0achievement_Alma%20Harris_2007%20.pdf

    Hayes, D. (2011). Predicting parental home and school involvement in high school African

    American adolescents. The High School Journal, 94(4), 154-166.

    Henry, K. L., & Huizinga, D. H. (2007a). School-related risk and protective factors associated with

    truancy among urban youth placed at risk. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(6), 505-519.

    doi: 10.1007/s10935-007-0115-7

    Henry, K. L., & Huizinga, D. H. (2007b). Truancy’s effect on the onset of drug use among urban

    adolescents placed at risk. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 9-17.

    doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.138

    Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic

    achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4),

    161-164. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x

    Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D.F. (2009). Parental Involvement in Middle School: A Meta-Analytic

    Assessment of the Strategies That Promote Achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3),

    740-763. doi: 10.1037/a0015362

  • 28

    Hoover‐Dempsey, K., Walker, J., Sandler, H., Whetsel, D., Green, C., Wilkins, A., & Closson, K.

    (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The

    Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130. doi:10.1086/499194

    I-wah, P. (1997). Functions of the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA): A Hong Kong Perspective.

    Chinese University Education Journal, 25(1), 81. Retrieved from

    http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399607

    Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary

    school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269. doi:

    10.1177/0042085905274540

    Kaplan Toren, N., & Seginer, R. (2015). Classroom climate, parental educational involvement, and

    student school functioning in early adolescence: a longitudinal study. Social Pyschology of

    Education, 18(4), 811. doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9316-8

    Kelso, R. (2013). Quick guide for P&C executive officers: parents performing a vital role in the

    education of their children! Retrieved from

    http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/pdf/quickguide-pc-executiveofficers.pdf

    Khong, L. Y.-L., & Ng, P. T. (2005). School–Parent Partnerships in Singapore. Educational

    Research for Policy and Practice, 4(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10671-005-5617-6

    Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parental involvement and school barriers: Moving the focus away from

    deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 80-102. doi:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.003

    McNeal, R.B. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and behavioural

    outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 171-179. doi:

    10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00100-1

    Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA]. (2008).

    Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved from

    http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_

    Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

    Mistry, R.S., Benner, A.D., Biesanz, J.C., & Clark, S.L. (2010). Family and social risk, and parental

    investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-income children’s school

  • 29

    readiness outcomes. Early Childhood research Quarterly, 25, 432-449.

    doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.01.002

    Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The Impact of School Leadership on Parental Engagement: A

    Study of Inclusion and Cohesion. International Research in Education 1(1), 129-148. doi:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ire.v1i1.3844.

    National School Climate Council. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap between

    school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education

    policy. Retrieved from http://community-matters.org/downloads/school-climate-challenge-

    policy-paper.pdf

    National School Climate Council. (2016). FAQ about school climate. Retrieved from

    http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/faq.php

    Ozmen, F., & Canpolat, C. (2010). The efficiency of School-Parent Associations (SPA) at schools.

    Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1947-1954. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.428

    P&Cs Qld. (2016). About P&Cs Qld. Retrieved from http://www.pandcsqld.com.au/about-us/about-

    pcs-qld/

    Pakseresht, S., & Ahari, A. E. (2014). Investigating the effectiveness of parent-teacher association

    activities in elementary schools of region 8 of Tehran. Arabian Journal of Business and

    Management Review, 3(11a), 194-202. Retrieved from

    http://search.proquest.com/docview/1547710400?accountid=14723

    Parental Engagement Project Taskforce. (2011). Parental engagement in schooling in low socio-

    economic status communities. Retrieved from

    https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/parental_engagement_0.pdf

    Payne, M., Hinds, J., & Gay, L. (1986). Parent-teacher relationships: Perspectives from a developing

    country. Educational Research, 28(2), 117-125. doi: 10.1080/0013188860280206

    Perkins, K., & Knight, P. (2014). Queensland college of teachers research digest (No. 10). Retrieved

    from http://www.qct.edu.au/Publications/Periodical/QCTResearchDigest2014-10.pdf

    Powell, D. R., Son, S., File, N., & San Juan, R.R. (2010). Parent–school relationships and children’s

    academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School

    Psychology, 48(4), 269-292. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.03.002

  • 30

    Queensland Government. (2012). Census 2011: Queensland’s population compared. Retrieved from

    http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/qld-pop-compared-c11/qld-pop-compared-

    c11.pdf

    Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s

    acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of

    Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907. doi: 10.3102/0034654308320319

    Shakur, C. R. (2012). An analysis of barriers to and strategies for improving parent engagement

    (Master’s thesis, Loyola University, Chicago, U.S.A). Retrieved from

    http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1727&context=luc_theses

    Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and

    mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196-206. Retrieved from

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/27548080

    StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

    Stranger, M. (2002). Student absence from school and juvenile crime: Project report. Canberra:

    Attorney-General’s Department.

    Thomson, S. (2013). Declining PISA outcomes: Time to stop the slide. Australian Council for

    Educational Research: Research Developments. Retrieved from

    https://rd.acer.edu.au/article/declining-pisa-outcomes-time-to-stop-the-slide

    Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2012). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up.

    Retrieved from https://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PISA-2012-Report.pdf

    Toldson, I.A., & Lemmons, B.P. (2013). Social demographics, the school environment, and

    parenting practices associated with parents’ participation in schools and academic success

    among Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social

    Environment, 23(2), 237-255. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2013.747407

    Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response.

    Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents

    disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257-271. doi:

    10.3200/JOER.102.4.257-271

  • 31

    Van Voorhis, F.L., Maier, M.F., Epstein, J.L., & Lloyd, C.M. (2013). The impact of family

    involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math

    achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills. Retrieved from

    http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/The_Impact_of_Family_Involvement_FR.pdf

    Wallace, M. (2013). High school teachers and African American parents: A (not so) collaborative

    effort to increase student success. The High School Journal, 96(3), 195-208. doi:

    10.1353/hsj.2013.0008

    Wang, M., & Sheikh-Khalil, S. (2014). Does parental involvement matter for student achievement

    and mental health in high school? Child Development, 85(2), 610-625.

    Watkins, T.J. (1997). Teacher communications, child achievement, and parent traits in parent

    involvement models. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(1), 3-14.

    Whitaker, M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (2013). School influences on parents’ role beliefs. The

    Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 73-99. doi: 10.1086/671061

    Wilson, R., Dalton, B., & Baumann, C. (2015). Six ways Australia’s education system is failing our

    kids. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/six-ways-australias-

    education-system-is-failing-our-kids-32958

    Zill, N., & Nord, C. W. (1994). Running in place: How American families are faring in a changing

    economy and an individualistic society. Washington, DC: Child Trends Inc.

    Part 1Part 2